December 19, 2010

Planning for Profits

Dear Residents:

I was at Vincent Gray’s press conference on Friday when Gray
reappointed Harriet Tregoning as Director of the Office of Planning.
Afterward, I spoke with a longtime observer of city politics and said
that I was surprised there weren’t more press questions about
Tregoning, since she was by far the most controversial appointment that
day, and was opposed by influential citizen and civic organizations. “Well,
you know who was pushing her,” he said. I assumed he was talking about
so-called “smart growth” and “green” organizations, but he wasn’t.
“She’s the developers’ candidate,” he said. “She’s made them
millions of dollars, and she’ll make them much more in the future.”

Then it was obvious, and obvious why citizen groups have so little
influence when fighting against the Office of Planning’s policies.
Tregoning gives the developers cover; she makes their arguments for
them while phrasing them in terms of “the public interest” rather
than developers’ greed. Everything she fights for means more profit
for developers. Closer, denser development, which she advocates, means
developers can build on a higher percentage of a lot, up to the
sidewalks, resulting in more profit for them. Raising or eliminating the
height limitation, which is one of her long-term goals, means developers
can build taller buildings, maximizing their profit, even though it
makes the city less pleasant to live in. Devaluating green space and
park areas within the city means developers can build on land that had
been set aside for recreation or for aesthetic reasons. That means more
money in developers’ pockets, with the “public interest” rationale
that it is ecologically sound to make cities as congested as possible to
combat “sprawl,” and that green spaces belong in rural areas rather
than in cities or suburbs. Lowering or eliminating the parking space
requirements for new buildings, with the rationalization that it
discourages automobile use, makes building new office and apartment
buildings significantly cheaper, shifting cost from developers to the
companies and residents that will occupy these new buildings that are
built without adequate parking.

“Smart growth” and “green” rationalizations are the facade,
the happy face painted over the reality of big money’s controlling the
development of the city — not in the interest of “ecology,” and
certainly not in the interest of keeping Washington’s neighborhoods
beautiful and livable — but in the interest of maximizing development
and maximizing the profits from development. That’s why Harriet’s
back for another term in a Vince Gray administration, and why citizens and civic groups are in for ever
harder fights to preserve what’s best about their neighborhoods.

Here are two reasons why I am concerned about the appointment of
Nicholas Majett as director of the DC Department of Regulatory and
Consumer Affairs.

1) As DCRA’s Deputy Director, Mr. Majett steadfastly refused to
listen to the Advisory Neighborhood Commission’s views about the
issuance of a new pawnbroker license for a site across the street from
Walter Reed. Fortunately, a judge agreed with residents and issued a
temporary restraining order against DCRA, but the decision cost
residents $6,000 in legal bills. And the DC city council had to enact
legislation directing DCRA to give ANCs the “great weight” the
existing statute required.

2) A leaky roof threatens the Takoma Theater, the 1922 building that
is one of the jewels of the Takoma Historic District. Owner Milton
McGinty, who unsuccessfully tried to raze the building, is letting mold
take over the interior. Mr. McGinty said he would rather pay fines than
spend a dime on repairs. During a special public meeting Deputy Director
Majett set a deadline of November 22 for repairs. However, Mr. Majett
and his staff are not answering E-mails requesting a status report on
the case.

Between about 1976 and 2010 the percent of black people living in the
District has dropped from 75 percent to 55 percent. The people who left
first were the newly hired city employees whom Marion Barry had hired.
He increased the DC government work force until it numbered 48,000,
nearly one tenth of the population. This first group moved to Prince
George’s County. But where did blacks go in the past five or ten
years?

I had assumed PG County, but one day while at the Social Security
Administration’s office I overheard a young woman saying she was
moving back to North Carolina to live near her kinfolk. She said she
could rent a four bedroom house for $1,000 a month. Two or three other
black people have told me the same thing. However, one woman who works
for the Red Cross says a number of her coworkers have left, about half
of whom were in their twenties and the rest in their fifties. Where did
they move? Montgomery County, Northern Virginia, and North Carolina.

Does anyone else have anecdotal or accurate statistical evidence on
where DC blacks are going?

I think you exercised poor judgment in departing from policy to
publish the anonymous comment critical of Gray and Green [. (What next?
Anonymous allegations against other colors? Start with White or Orange.
. . .) And it appears that you didn’t even fact-check the allegation
that Green’s daughter had been appointed to a lucrative job in DCPS.

If I’m correct, you owe the Greens and the Gray and your readers an
apology.

[Actually, at one time last year it appeared that Gray, Orange, and
one or two Browns could all run for mayor, but no White or other color
announced. In the end, only Gray ran for mayor, and Orange and one Brown
ran for council chairman. Colonel Green, Miss Scarlet, Professor Plum,
Mr. Green, Mrs. White, and Mrs. Peacock were all dispersed throughout
the rest of the house. Larry is right that an editor who accepts
anonymous submissions assumes responsibility for the errors in them, but
the only error (rather than difference of opinion) that has been pointed
out in Anonymous’ post is that Lorraine Green’s daughter, Leslie
Green, does not work for DC Public Schools. The last time I checked,
however, working for DCPS is not a disgrace, no matter how much Fenty
and Rhee tried to make it into one. The main accusations that Anonymous
made — that many or most of Gray’s campaign volunteers and
supporters are disappointed and disillusioned by their treatment since
the campaign, and that many or most of them blame the management of the
transition effort on Lorraine Green — have been substantiated by many
people. Those people, regardless of what some others think, are not just
self-serving job seekers; from what I know of them they worked in the
Gray campaign because they were committed to an issue or believed in
Gray personally. — Gary Imhoff]

I read Dorothy Brizill’s comments on Gray’s job
summit [themail, December 15], which in the main seemed to be critical
of Gray’s decision to include Chamber of Commerce members, corporate
executives, and the like but not persons and organizations that in her
words could speak directly about the problems associated with hiring
unemployed DC residents.

It would seem to me that Gray’s move was most appropriate, in that
the participants at this summit are the ones who are doing or should be
doing the hiring, government excepted, in our city . What could be a
better approach than going to these people and getting direct
information about the barriers or impediments to hiring that exist in
their individual and collective views and experience? It seems to me
that the next step in trying to find a solution would be to convene a
“summit” of the folks Dorothy says were excluded and get their
input. And then, perhaps, the Gray folks who are now possessed of a full
understanding of the issues and problems, can formulate an effective
plan to address unemployment here. In my view, having the two groups or
factions, if you will, at the first Gray summit would have been
counterproductive, with each side feeling the need to justify whatever
position each held. In the end, they would probably accomplish very
little, if anything.

It can hardly be disputed that if any meaningful hiring is to come
about, it will come from those who attended Gray’s Job Summit and not
from those groups, persons, and organizations who may be able to “speak
directly about the problems and hurdles facing the unemployed in the
District.” While I would agree that Gray needs to hear from everyone,
it was the far wiser course to speak first to the job providers who
presumably laid out their concerns, issues, and complaints, and later
speak to the other folks and make up a remedial plan.

In the last issue of themail, Marilyn Simon opposed DC Office of
Planning’s parking zoning proposals because “regulations should not
be changed based on an unrealistic expectation that future residents
will own fewer vehicles or none at all.” Ms. Simon and your readers
should know that DC residents already own fewer vehicles than in the
past, and this trend is continuing. It’s entirely appropriate for OP
to propose zoning that matches this reality. As reported by Kytja Weir
in the Washington Examiner [http://washingtonexaminer.com/transportation/2009/04/vehicle-registrations-drop-district]:
“Vehicle registrations dropped 5.8 percent in the District between
2005 and 2008. . . . That drop occurred even as the DC population
increased 1.7 percent during that time, according to US Census Bureau
figures.”

[Do read Weir's article to see the various explanations given for why
car registrations may have dropped. — Gary Imhoff]

###############

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription
to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the
E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the
E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.

All postings should be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should
be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in
one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be printed,
and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief paragraphs
would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can be put into
each mailing.